Microsoft isn't the only company in the technology industry with a monopoly. Its partner in crime, Intel, has often been accused of monopoly abuse as well, and is currently under scrutiny by the same European Commission who fined Microsoft. Sources have told eWeek (which generally has a good track record) that Intel will indeed be found guilty this week of abusing its monopoly position to stifle the competition.

The problem here is with the artificial restrictions by Intel (aka ChipZilla) to corner AMD into limited market growth by strong arming the OEMs.

Is it morally acceptable for a dominant competitor to corner an underdog by strong arming their clients? How could we expect an underdog to continue to compete when they can't rake in the needed revenue for R&D and manufacturing?

It's like fighting with your arm tied behind your back. You might get lucky but its still isn't a fair fight. AMD has proven that despite the odds, they could deliver outstanding products, the playing field has to be fair if consumers expect them to do more of that.

ChipZilla guilty of anti-trust outside of the US? Who would have thunk it? *wink*wink*

FYI, I concur with your comment, just adding some thoughts that others may miss.